User talk:Robin Lionheart
- 1 Welcome
- 2 DRN notification
- 3 santorum
- 4 Scrubbing your talk page
- 5 3RR warning
- 6 Disambiguation link notification
- 7 RfC
- 8 Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
- 9 The Adventure games task force Magazine - Issue 1
- 10 Talk:Atheism
- 11 Stat
- 12 +1
- 13 No personal attacks against living people
- 14 Gods existence
- 15 WikiProject Report
- 16 Atheism
- 17 Legal names
- 18 Asking for a help
- 19 Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
- 20 Edit war on Torchwood
- 21 See
- 22 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 23 Formal mediation has been requested
- 24 DRN escalation recommendation to ANI and Mediation re Historicity of Jesus
- 25 Request for mediation rejected
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --un☯mi 02:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi - please don't replace that site again - its clearly contentious and has been discussed over and over - please follow - WP:BRD and open a discussion and seek consensus on the talkpage - its an attack site against a BLP subject - a bit diferent to stormfront - Youreallycan 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion opened and consensus sought on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Scrubbing your talk page
- (moved from User talk:Youreallycan)
I notice that a little over an hour ago, you scrubbed every comment off of your talk page with the summary "archive". Then you went on to make several more edits, but neglected to actually archive our comments anywhere. I think you should correct this oversight. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am archiving them in my private collection. Note - editors are under no obligation to archive anything. Youreallycan 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't link unnecessarily to my username in a header like that - the best thing is if you just remove me from your watchlist - what I do with my archives and talkpage is nothing for you to be focusing on. thanks - please don't obsess on my edits unnecessarily, thanks - Youreallycan 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your transfer of that header from your talk page to mine could cause confusion about whose talk page was being discussed. Appending this conversation's origin avoids misleading readers. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- As a general rule, you should not delete other editor's comments from their talk pages without their permission. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- From - WP:TALKNEW - A WP:behavioral guideline - Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Do not mention other editors by name in article talk page headings. - why do you feel unable to comply with my good faith request to remove my username and internal link from your talkpage header? I have moved it out of the header and left it clearly visible at the top of the message for you.
- I don't get a good feeling from you following and commenting on my edits - please don't post again on my talkpage. I will also avoid yours, thanks. - Youreallycan 10:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- To answer your question: I gave you my reason above for changing it. Surely you read my reply when you deleted this whole conversation earlier. Your note beneath should also suffice.
- You seem to have a paranoid idea that I "obsess on" or "follow" your edits. Your talk page was on my watchlist because I check "Watch this page" when commenting. So I noticed when you erased my comment, and commented on that. That's all. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is standard practice for User:Youreallycan -- he likes a pretty talk-page, and if someone posts something critical he moves it to that person's talkpage. It's not hard to imagine why. Some people just move it back to his, noting that "I have the same policy". Your reasoning about why his username should go in the header is of course entirely sensible -- his habit can make things confusing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Users have control over their own talk pages - and note also that there are ongoing discussions at various places about using editor names in section titles. Cheers - but your "advice" is not a wondrous bit. Collect (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Campaign for "santorum" neologism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Stranger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Adventure games task force Magazine - Issue 1
I don't think it was intentional, but you seem to have removed three whole comments from the above talk page (diff). I will fix it now. In the odd event that it was intentional for some reason, you should know that messing with other peoples comments is considered tampering. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yikes, I certainly did not intend to clobber those subsequent comments. I'm glad you caught that. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- RE: 10 Commandments
Hi Robin. You'll find that on this page, there are a number of people that are trying to defend their religous understading of the text. Most identify themselves as consertively Jewish, but some Christians in there as well. The "RD" has been a sore spot from them, as it is so far from their othrodox understanding, and, frankly, makes the text look rather foolish. MY big peeve is their "revelation at Mount Sinia", in which they string to gether verses of various books of the bible, so that they may tell their story, un-interrupted by passages that DON'T conform to their orthodoxy.
Fresh faces tend to bring up the RD from time to time, but they are generally slapped down, and they tend to go away. The only people on the non-religous slide tend to be me and Kawami. Cheers.
Clearly not there yet (I don't imagine the language will be there for another few years at least), but actual honest usage is undeniably increasing:  (if impatient, scroll to where he starts talking about cooking). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wondered what you were talking about till I followed your scrolling instructions and saw it. Thanks for the link, I've added it to Wiktionary's list. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No personal attacks against living people
- I agree it should be redacted. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. (Though some may still find the text you wanted removed by following your three links to it.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually used to think along the line you have mentioned. But a few days ago while writing a section called ultimate coincidence i got into a deep thinking, and have realized, that us not being surrounded by aliens could be only result of Gods intervention and thus proves His existence. Try to follow my logic again please. And you may read my comments on mr. 98 talkpage who has replied on the REFERENCE DESK/SCIENCE.Ryanspir (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buffbills7701
Hello dear user. Can I ask you to make a small favor to me: please if you have time look at the Atheism artcle's talk page. I opened new section called Some very interesting and very important statistics. Your opinion about my suggestions is important to me. Thanks in advance. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, in many US states, when you petition a court to order a name change, court procedure may require you to publish a legal notice publicly to allow the public to file objections. Of course, if you change your legal name without a court order, that's unnecessary. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Further re Talk:Chelsea Manning, it's not very congenial or collegial of you to be so aggressively eager to declare me "wrong." Assume good faith, please.
- Some examples of legal name usage from my own experience:
- Back in my school days in Minn. I had a female friend named Roberta, who always disliked that male-sounding name and went by the name Robin (without an umlaut). Everyone knew her as Robin, but her name on her driver's license, high school diploma, university records, etc., was Roberta.
- In those same days, I had a male friend named Jody who was never comfortable with that (to some) female-sounding name and who later changed it to Jarrett. To do this he had to file a court petition.
- I've lost touch with both these old friends, but I suspect that Robin still is known as such but still is legally identified as Roberta. By the same token, Pfc. Manning can 'go by' whatever name he/she wants, but legally he/she is still Bradley.
- I've seen a lot of lawsuit documents in my time, and in the case of people who 'go by' names other than their legal names, the assumed names usually are listed under "also known as" or "sometimes known as." Unless those people change their names legally.
- Sca (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some examples of legal name usage from my own experience:
- I never thought nor implied that you were not arguing in good faith. Your assertion was false, that's all. It's not only possible to change your legal name without a petition, it's even commonplace for married women.
- I successfully navigated the red tape of changing my full legal name without a judicial proceeding, and if your friend Robin has the patience to do it the hard way, she could do it too. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Asking for a help
Hello Dear User,
I would like to ask you to do me a favor: it's keep going discussion in the talk page of Thomas Jefferson's article about including his words about Christianity in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Thomas_Jefferson.27s_words_about_Christianity. Unfortunatelly, some users turned it into the religious sermon. If you have time and want to help please give an attention to that issue. Thanks in advance. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and this is not a warning (just a polite request). Can you cease changing the same section of text in the article Torchwood about the use or not of the term 'omnisexual'. Instead please contribute to the discussion Talk:Torchwood#Homosexual, Bisexual,Omnisexual on the subject. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:
"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"
Formal mediation has been requested
DRN escalation recommendation to ANI and Mediation re Historicity of Jesus